Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
What Evidence Is Present To Prove Re-Birth Exists?
This makes it impossible to see anything clearly. The nature of the mind is not established. Your view is not even insight.
I didn't say it has to be supermundane right view or anything of the sort. You're just being silly. The dropping of particular mental factors that were present in the 1st do so because of a natural insight, which is what allows for the progression from the 1st to the 2nd. This gives the meditator particular knowledge even though there is no explicit nonconceptual realization.
Sorry Aaaki. This has no basis in the suttas.
Maybe one day you'll read Master Dharmakirti or Master Dignaga, etc.
Also, thanks for the links to the sutras, but as you know I assert that you heavily skew their meanings. There isn't the slightest thing you have to offer me but I am glad you follow impermanence well. Unless you're particularly unlucky supernormal capacities will arise naturally in the jhanas, and then you can smack Buddhadhasa's idea about mind being sense organs. Or your insistence that body being a condition for the physical sense consciousnesses implies causation.
Regarding Buddhadhasa and brahmins: my point is that they both ask the same question and both equally proceed to fall off the sides of the cliff. Granted one to one side and the other on the other but they still do. As I said, brahmins say 'you're an idiot, how could there possibly be rebirth without a self?' and thus asserts self. Buddhadhasa say 'how could there be rebirth when there is no self?' and thus asserts nihilism (annihilation of cause and effect, dependent arising). He backs this idea up, naturally, by relying on his intelligence to say that mind is physical sense organ. This is neither new or unpredictable.
Ok, so what are you suggesting the mind depends on then?
In the Dependent Origination, many Buddhist believe the Buddha taught sankhara creates consciousness.
The Buddha did not teach this. The Buddha taught sankharas condition consciousness, in the same way shampoo conditions hair.
There is nothing in the suttas that attempts to explain the origin of mind.
All the suttas do is explain the generating of consciousness so it absorbs into sense objects and leads to suffering. Buddha was only concerned with suffering and its cessation.
When ignorance ends, consciousness remains, but it is a peaceful consciousness.
Bhikkus, one who is engaged is unliberated; one who is disengaged is liberated. Consciousness, while standing, might stand engaged with form; based upon form, established upon form, with a sprinkling of delight, it might come to growth, increase and expansion.
Bhikkhus, if a bhikkhu has abandoned lust for the form element, with abandoning of lust the basis is cut off: there is no support for the establishing of consciousness.
When that consciousness is unestablished, not coming to growth, nongenerative, it is liberated. By being liberated, it is steady; by being steady, it is content; by being content, he is not agitated. Being not agitated, he personally attains Nibbana. He understands: 'Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being'.
Well, I thought that's what aaki was getting at too, but then she said that sankhara depends on mind and not the other way around, so I am confused about her exact position on what the mind depends on then. :S
Regarding the actual meaning of past lives, this is found in the Khajjaniya Sutta. You need to study this desparately.
At Savatthi. "Monks, any priests or contemplatives who recollect their manifold past lives all recollect the five clinging-aggregates, or one among them." If this translation is correct, it is not saying that the recollection of previous lives is the recollection of the five aggregates in the past. Instead, it says you can recollect one aggregate or many, when recollecting past lives. Even if your point of view is correct, this sutta doesn't seem to support it.
Thanks for posting a sutta where he addresses past lives directly to monks though, I guess we are now sure he didn't use this "rebirth" idea just with laity.
Regarding the metaphorical meaning of past lives, this the Buddha taught to Brahmins, such as in the Bhaya-bherava Sutta.
"I recollected my manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two... five, ten... fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, many eons of cosmic contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion, many eons of cosmic contraction & expansion."
"with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell."
OK so you are saying eons of cosmic contraction and expansion is a metaphor, the expression after death is a metaphor, break up of the body is a metaphor? Doesn't seem right to me. If you are right about the Buddha views, why would he repeat it over and over? It is pointless, he could just be silent. If I held the same view as you do I would just go ahead and admit I don't agree with the suttas. I don't see what is the big deal of bending the obvious to make it fit your views. Just disagree with them, nobody will fauter you.
Regarding how Brahmins and other non-Buddhists believe in the metaphorical meaning and how arahants do not claim to have seen the literal meaning of past lives, this is found in the Susima Sutta.
If anything it just states that this kind of knowledge is unecessary. I think I posted something about this in another thread, although I wasn't sure, but this sutta confirms my theory.
I agree with you in the sense people add too much to the suttas [I get the impression from your previous posts that you do think some so called masters teach things the Buddha did not]. These suttas you quoted are very nice, but if you allow me to add, it seems that you don't like to admit that your views are based in faith, and want to affirm that they are plainly rational.
The thing is, at the moment you start saying that "the sky is blue" is a metaphor for how the wholesome actions bring peace of mind, or something similar, it pretty much shows how much faith you invest on your views. They are distorted. If you don't believe me, just re-evaluate them, it won't hurt. Ask someone you trust, a teacher or similar, to comment the way you go about interpreting the suttas, it might surprise you.
Unless you're particularly unlucky supernormal capacities will arise naturally in the jhanas, and then you can smack Buddhadhasa's idea about mind being sense organs.
You seem to be implying that your own beliefs are grounded in such an experience. Is this the case?
Ok, so what are you suggesting the mind depends on then?
Mind depends on anything it's focused on.
However the point I am making is that this dependence of samskaras on the mind shows that the mind functions. You can literally work with it which is precisely what physicalism asserts is not possible, namely because you are an automaton and that the function of samskaras are an illusion. At such a point, you can no longer afford such a view.
In fact you will start going deeper and watching karmas, and making detailed and sophisticated charts, and explaining how you can for example change the earth element in water to walk on it. This is all explained in great detail in things like the Abhidharmakosha.
In the Dependent Origination, many Buddhist believe the Buddha taught sankhara creates consciousness.
Your misinformation is astounding. You are not even familiar with the distinctions between the various types of causes and types of conditions. No-one says samskara CREATES the 5th heap. It is a combination of material causes, conditions, and depends on what type of mind you are talking about. It's just as astounding as when you say that a mental continuum implies an unchanging self.
The dropping of particular mental factors that were present in the 1st do so because of a natural insight, which is what allows for the progression from the 1st to the 2nd. This gives the meditator particular knowledge even though there is no explicit nonconceptual realization.
You are giving emphasis to nothing. This is no relevance to anything.
...then you can smack Buddhadhasa's idea about mind being sense organs. Or your insistence that body being a condition for the physical sense consciousnesses implies causation.
I have not quoted Buddhadasa once. I have quoted the sutta, which state consciousness is subject to causation via the sense organs.
The Buddha taught all things apart from Nibbana follow causation.
You are denying causation of mind. Certainly not Buddhist.
Due to nurturing is why many children hold the same emotional qualities as their parents but due to random genetics can have different qualities such as intelligence or bodily strength.
Brother. Please. Your attempts to repudiate science appear akin to Christian attempts to assert Creationism.
You're asserting as nonmeditators did 200 years ago. Similiar to Buddhadhasa relying on his intelligence.
But these days there are neuroscientist meditators, so your kind of intellectual arrogance falls on deaf ears these days. You have a lot of reading to do regarding both topics, mr automaton.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that if you still think you're an automaton, you haven't realized emptiness. That goes for every other 15 year old nihilist out on the street, too, hiding under the false pretense of science.
Is there something that tells you that they're not?
Aaki in this sense I agree with fivebells (*tosses wood in the fire*). Your views can be based on arguments of authority or even on empirical data, but they don't come from logic.
One can't prove rebirth with logic, as far as I can tell. As far as logic goes, the answer to whether there is rebirth or not would have to be "there is not enough data". (As in: A goes to the supermarket with 10 dollars. There, A decides to buy oranges. How many oranges did A buy?) :^P
One can't prove rebirth with logic, as far as I can tell. As far as logic goes, the answer to whether there is rebirth or not would have to be "there is not enough data".
Oh, he's not even talking about that on this occasion.
Furthermore, rebirth is primarily based on logic. Logical proofs for example that a previous moment of mind is the material cause for this moment of mind. Proofs that physical matter could never be the material cause for mind. Things like that, there are many.
The problem with Vaibhashikas (part of which is Theravada) is they have a simplistic but accurate presentation of mind (specifically mental factors). Once you get into Dharmakirti and Dignaga (Sautrantika) then buddhism essentially turns into a sophisticated system of logic and pramana theory (valid cognition). Most people don't know this because they are not educated buddhists (or their school doesn't accept all the Indian masters).
Theravada is Buddhism for idiots that don't lead to no Nibbana. :buck:
:eek:
Mind depends on anything it's focused on.
Elaborate. That makes no sense. I'm asking for a detailed description of what you believe mind to be, what it's dependent on, and how.
In fact you will start going deeper and watching karmas, and making detailed and sophisticated charts, and explaining how you can for example change the earth element in water to walk on it. This is all explained in great detail in things like the Abhidharmakosha.
:crazy: Really, what in god's name could one possibly say to this. Let me go get my Peter Pan storybook from when I was a kid and teach you how to fly. Would you be kind enough to demonstrate this truth you assert by hurling yourself into the middle of the Atlantic for me, so I can has proofs of this myself? :buck: I promise I'll believe you then.
Nameless,
If this translation is correct, it is not saying that the recollection of previous lives is the recollection of the five aggregates in the past. Instead, it says you can recollect one aggregate or many, when recollecting past lives. Even if your point of view is correct, this sutta doesn't seem to support it.
Thanks for posting a sutta where he addresses past lives directly to monks though, I guess we are now sure he didn't use this "rebirth" idea just with laity.
The sutta does not say past lives. The sutta discusses that recollecting any "self" is an illusion, whether it was yesterday or what you believe to be 100 lifetimes ago. You are making it sound like he was teaching the monks that rebirth is true.
Either way this sutta supports the assertion that belief in past lives, as well as supposedly "recollecting" them, is absolutely pointless to what he teaches.
The thing is, at the moment you start saying that "the sky is blue" is a metaphor for how the wholesome actions bring peace of mind, or something similar, it pretty much shows how much faith you invest on your views. They are distorted. If you don't believe me, just re-evaluate them, it won't hurt. Ask someone you trust, a teacher or similar, to comment the way you go about interpreting the suttas, it might surprise you.
How has anyone here said anything comparable to "the sky is blue is a metaphor for..."? Everything that has been said has been backed up by numerous references to the suttas, and are things that can also be seen to be true for one's self.
No one has denied that literal rebirth comes up in the suttas. But it was not the Buddha's own teachings, it had nothing to do with his message. It has it's place but not as a factor of the Path. The belief in rebirth is outright taught to be a hinderance to the path to Nibbana in the suttas. Any view of continuance or annihilation at death is based on the illusion that the Buddha taught us to do away with.
Furthermore, rebirth is primarily based on logic. Logical proofs for example that a previous moment of mind is the material cause for this moment of mind. Proofs that physical matter could never be the material cause for mind. Things like that, there are many.
Illogic 1: Mind comes from mind. It is unrelated to matter, the brain or the nervous system. Thus this beginningless mind is exactly the same as God.
Logic 1: A human being enters a hospital for extensive surgery. The human being is given an anesthetic, rending that human being unconscious. The human being is aware of nothing & feels nothing.
Logic 2: A human being requires surgery and is given acupuncture. The human being remains visually consciousness but can feel nothing via the body consciousness sense door.
Logic 3: A human being is in a motor vehicle accident, incurring a brain injury. The human being loses certain mental capacities they once had.
Logic 4: A human being, alleged to be an arahant & possessing supernormal psychic powers, such as Ajahn Chah, spends the last years of their life in dementia.
Logic 4: A human being, alleged to be an arahant & possessing supernormal psychic powers, such as Ajahn Chah, spends the last years of their life in dementia.
At Savatthi. "Monks, any priests or contemplatives who recollect their manifold past lives all recollect the five clinging-aggregates, or one among them." If this translation is correct, it is not saying that the recollection of previous lives is the recollection of the five aggregates in the past. Instead, it says you can recollect one aggregate or many, when recollecting past lives. Even if your point of view is correct, this sutta doesn't seem to support it.
Thanks for posting a sutta where he addresses past lives directly to monks though, I guess we are now sure he didn't use this "rebirth" idea just with laity.
Nameless
The sutta states what it states.
It states when a person recollects "I was" in the past, they are in fact just recollecting mere aggregates.
The whole sutta negates the "I", in the past & the present.
For example, often if a practitioner realises emptiness in the here & now, when they recollect the past, it is though their "self" was real in the past. They do not see in the past, their mind was under the spell of ignorance.
At Savatthi. "Monks, any priests or contemplatives who recollect their manifold past lives all recollect the five clinging-aggregates or one among them. Which five? When recollecting, 'I was one with such a form in the past,' one is recollecting just form. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a feeling in the past,' one is recollecting just feeling. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a perception in the past,' one is recollecting just perception. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such mental fabrications in the past,' one is recollecting just mental fabrications. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a consciousness in the past,' one is recollecting just consciousness.
"Anything whatsoever that is past, future or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: everything is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
"This, monks, is called a disciple of the noble ones who tears down and does not build up; who abandons and does not cling; who discards and does not pull in; who scatters and does not pile up.
However, one funny aspect of your interpretation is having a past life with just one aggregate.
...you are saying eons of cosmic contraction and expansion is a metaphor, the expression after death is a metaphor, break up of the body is a metaphor? Doesn't seem right to me.
What does not seem right to you accords with your interpretation.
If your mind discerned every arising and passing moment of sense consciousness, it may interpret differently.
If you mind discerned every kaya in Anapanasati, it may interpret different. ("I tell you monks, the breathing in & out in a body amongst bodies".)
The Awakened One, best of speakers,
Spoke two kinds of truths:
The conventional and the ultimate.
A third truth does not obtain.
tattha:
saṅketavacanaṃ saccaṃ
lokasammutikāraṇaṃ
paramatthavacanaṃ saccaṃ
dhammānaṃ tathalakkhaṇan ti
Therein:
The speech wherewith the world converses is true
On account of its being agreed upon by the world.
The speech which describes what is ultimate is also true,
Through characterizing dhammas as they really are.
tasmā vohārakusalassa
lokanāthassa satthuno
sammutiṃ voharantassa
musāvādo na jāyatī ti
Therefore, being skilled in common usage,
False speech does not arise in the Teacher,
Who is Lord of the World,
When he speaks according to conventions.
(Mn. i. 95)
However, one funny aspect of your interpretation is having a past life with just one aggregate.
Wouldn't that be funny though? Can you imagine a human being missing one of those as a main character of a story and how he would go about doing his business? Or better yet, the guy suddenly looses one of his aggregates due to a casual event that somehow triggers the unexpected (not explained in the story of course, in order to make it more fancy) and that one element that is missing turns out to be essential and the so the story goes and in the end I get a literary prize
I didn't mean in that sense though, I meant you recollect one aspect, as in the case I can recollect yesterday was a overall good day, I was feeling pleasant things, or I can just remember I went to a friend's house, something like that. This is not really important, I just wanted to make clear what I meant.
They are distorted. If you don't believe me, just re-evaluate them, it won't hurt. Ask someone you trust, a teacher or similar, to comment the way you go about interpreting the suttas, it might surprise you.
My views are not distorted.
You did not understand the sutta about past lives. Instead of tearing down 'self', you build it up.
The Buddha said of those who realise his Dhamma:
“Bhikkhus, knowing and seeing in this way, would you run back to the past: ‘Were we in the past? Were we not in the past? What were we in the past? How were we in the past? Having been what, what did we become in the past?’
“No, bhante.”
“Knowing and seeing in this way, would you run forward to the future: ‘Shall we be in the future? Shall we not be in the future? What shall we be in the future? How shall we be in the future? Having been what, what shall we become in the future?’?”
“No, bhante.”
“Knowing and seeing in this way, would you now be inwardly perplexed about the present: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where will it go?’?”
“No, bhante.”
“Good, bhikkhus. So you have been guided by me with this dhamma, which is directly visible (sandikka), timeless (akalika), verifiable (ehipassika), leading onwards (opaneyyika), to be individually experienced by the wise (paccattam veditabbo vinnuhi). For it was with reference to this that it has been said: ‘Bhikkhus, this dhamma is directly visible, timeless, verifiable, leading onwards, to be individually experienced by the wise.
The thing is, at the moment you start saying that "the sky is blue" is a metaphor for how the wholesome actions bring peace of mind, or something similar,...
This is irrelevent to the language the Buddha used.
The mind-body we possess is conditioned by our mental states. For example, when people lose a loved one, often their body changes. They get sick, they have depression, they develop a nervous disorder.
This is because the body they formerly had, sustained by their loved one, has broken up. They develop a broken heart. This happens after the 'death' of the loved one.
In Dhamma, the word 'kaya', literally group, is 'body'. There is nama-kaya (mental body) and rupa-kaya (physical body).
In the sutta you quoted, the teaching is about karma & its results. It is not about life after death.
The Buddha taught about karma & its results and not life after death.
Your emphasis on life after death is irrelevent.
For example, a person ill-behaved as the Buddha taught, enjoying the fruits of a life of crime, is suddenly caught and put in prison, this has the same meaning.
How can one such as yourself, who asks question upon question on this site, know what a teacher is or know what is right?
In order to know what is right or not I ask questions. I regard everybody as a possible teacher. I try to observe how people stick to what they preach, and how they act. Than I watch the consequences of their actions and compare to what I have learned so far.
Obviously, my answers to your questions on Anapanasati and such were a waste of my time.
Illogic 1: Mind comes from mind. It is unrelated to matter, the brain or the nervous system. Thus this beginningless mind is exactly the same as God.
That's not even close to being a correct summary of what is asserted. The material cause for mind is mind. Mind is related to the physical matter of the body etc. The mind is not like god because god is unchanging and unproduced, whereas the continuum of the mind is both produced and changing.
The topic of infinite mind (beginningless, endless) is very subtle. You resemble christians who insist that there must be, obviously has to be, a prime cause. Yet the reason as to why the mind is infinite is similar as to why time is infinite.
An illustration is that there's no problem with mind being an infinite chain of cause and effect if there is infinite time in which it can happen. I'm sort of cheating by using this simple illustration but the topic is complex and is very detailed and there is a lot to say. As a Theravadin this topic may be a little harder to work with because you do not have the advantage of working with and proving that certain types of phenomena are merely imputed phenomena (imputedly knowable), and are devoid of self-standing substantial existence.
Logic 1 - 3:
Hmm where have I heard those ideas before. Since the mind is conditioned by the body of course if you affect the body mental experience is affected. That will happen by definition unless a person has developed particular mental qualities.
Some points to consider: it is illogical to assert that because particular experience is no longer possible that then the mental experience is necessarily the physical part. Lately some scientists are showing that 'the mind' affects the brain. Daniel J. Siegel, M.D
Also, your mental experience doesn't occupy any space. Also it seems as though you are not an automaton. Also besides certain correlations there's not much hard evidence.
The sutta does not say past lives. The sutta discusses that recollecting any "self" is an illusion, whether it was yesterday or what you believe to be 100 lifetimes ago. You are making it sound like he was teaching the monks that rebirth is true.
A grand distortion of buddhadharma. As every real buddhist knows, the self being denied is atman and not the collection of the aggregates which designated as the person.
"In Samyutta Nikaya (SN) 4.400, Gautama Buddha was asked if there “was no soul (natthatta)”[15], which it is conventionally considered to be equivalent to Nihilism (ucchedavada). The Buddha himself has said: “Both formerly and now, I’ve never been a nihilist (vinayika), never been one who teaches the annihilation of a being, rather taught only the source of suffering, and its ending.” [16] The early Suttas see annihilationism, which the Buddha equated with denial of a Self, as tied up with belief in a Self.[17] It is seen as arising due to conceiving a Self in some sort of relationship to the personality-factors. It is thus rooted in the 'I am' attitude; even the attitude 'I do not exist' arises from a preoccupation with 'I'.[18]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta
The whole sutta negates the "I", in the past & the present.
For example, often if a practitioner realises emptiness in the here & now, when they recollect the past, it is though their "self" was real in the past. They do not see in the past, their mind was under the spell of ignorance.
It negates clinging it does not negate the person which is a functioning abstraction. Furthermore "manifold past lives" does not refer to various instances of a person during this life, because such instances are not lives.
""Anything whatsoever that is past, future or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: everything is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'"
However, one funny aspect of your interpretation is having a past life with just one aggregate.
"recollect the five clinging-aggregates or one among them"
You seem prone to drawing out nonsensical conclusions from things you read.
As every real buddhist knows [read: quack quack qauck] the self being denied is atman and not the collection of the aggregates which designated as the person.
"Monk, knowing in this way, seeing in this way is there — with regard to this body endowed with consciousness, and with regard to all external signs — no longer any I-making, or my-making, or obsession with conceit."
Now at that moment this line of thinking appeared in the awareness of a certain monk: "So — form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?"
"Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released.
...:eek:
And since you find Wikipedia a more reliable source than the suttas, from the very article you just quoted:
At one time in Savatthi, the venerable Radha seated himself and asked of the Blessed Lord Buddha: “Anatta, anatta I hear said venerable. What pray tell does Anatta mean?” “Just this, Radha, form is not the self (anatta), sensations are not the self (anatta), perceptions are not the self (anatta), assemblages are not the self (anatta), consciousness is not the self (anatta). Seeing thusly, this is the end of birth, the Brahman life has been fulfilled, what must be done has been done.”<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-12>[13]</SUP>
I was not suggesting that the aggregates are an illusion or something, aaki. I was suggesting that there is no "self" to be found in the aggregates, that identifying/clinging to the aggregates is forming an illusion of "self" around them.
Furthermore "manifold past lives" does not refer to various instances of a person during this life, because such instances are not lives.
The Pali doesn't say "lives."
It's refering to: "I-making, or my-making, or obsession with conceit"
Clearly clinging to the aggregates as "self" can be seen in this very life and moment, no?
I was not suggesting that the aggregates are an illusion or something, aaki. I was suggesting that there is no "self" to be found in them.
WHAT has no SELF? The AGGREGATES (PARTS) of a PERSON.
WHAT are we discussing about these PERSONS? Their MANIFOLD PAST LIVES.
What about them?
When you RECOLLECT them you recollect THE FIVE CLINGING-AGGREGATES [or one among them]. EACH of THESE should be "seen as it actually is with right discernment". " 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'"
"This, monks, is called a disciple of the noble ones who abandons and does not cling"
Holy mother of christ what is wrong with you two guys.
The Pali doesn't say "lives."
It's refering to: "I-making, or my-making, or obsession with conceit"
????
And since you find Wikipedia a more reliable source than the suttas, from the very article you just quoted:
Unfortunately I do not speak CAPS LOCK and so the first half of your outburst reads as Chinese to me.
How you are allowed to post this in a buddhist forum is amazing.
Free speech or something, I imagine. Those who know the Truth do not feel it necessary to completely censor others' opposing views; therefore I must assume that...
Holy mother of christ what is wrong with you two guys.
Oh, you see, this is just flaming. You are getting very, very angry and upset over this. Perhaps it's best you don't manipulate that earth element in the water just yet, and go take a nice bath to cool yourself down and try rewriting your post with your newly born and calm "self" tomorrow.
????
As I have not attained Aaki Jhana 4.3 yet, I cannot read your mind and ascertain the question that was meant to precede your ?'s, otherwise I would be happy to clarify things for you.
Oh, you see, this is just flaming. You are getting very, very angry and upset over this.
Really? I'm not even in the slightest way angry. Your position is too ridiculous for such a thing. Read the capital letters as though they highlight extreme absurdity. They're also there so you can read it nice and slowly.. see how I made the sentences nice and short. Slow pace, maximum absurdity.
I'm going to meditate and then sleep so gnight as well (yes, some ppl at 4.3 power level jhana still need sleep)
Really? I'm not even in the slightest way angry. Your position is too ridiculous for such a thing. Read the capital letters as though they highlight extreme absurdity. They're also there so you can read it nice and slowly.. see how I made the sentences nice and short. Slow pace, maximum absurdity.
Perhaps you might consider that we are using words in different senses. Because when you say things like "you're annihilating persons," I'm forced to assume you've misunderstood me. So instead of getting all excited, perhaps we can work on clarifying where each other stands, yeah?
You seem to use consciousness and mind synonymously which makes things confusing. You have not clarified precisely what "mind" is nor how it exists after we die and pops into a va-jay-jay acting as some sort of "animating life force." At what point do you believe this "thing" swooshes down into the womb? At fertilization? Does a bundle of cells have this "consciousness" or "mind" or whatever it is you're talking about?
I will now try to channel aaki jhana power lvl. 4.3 (beta), although it would have been helpful if you had simply clarified the the things I asked you to in my last post.
WHAT has no SELF? The AGGREGATES (PARTS) of a PERSON.
Yes, the aggregates that form what I can conventionally refer to as "me" have no "self" to be found in them, and the aggregates together are not "self."
WHAT are we discussing about these PERSONS? Their MANIFOLD PAST LIVES.
?????
No, we are not discussing past lives. The Pali, once again, does not say "past lives." The suttas clarify that it is refering to recalling past clingings to the aggregates as "self." Clinging to the aggregates as "self" in whole or part can be seen in this very moment and life, and as such there is no need to even consider trying to prove past lives and see this truth in past lives. Every time one forms self-identity around the aggregates, a new "self" is born. The suttas explicitly state that what is being refered to is "any I-making, or my-making, or obsession with conceit" - I do not know what about this line is confusing to you so please explain. When something is clung to as "I" or "mine," it, along with that "self," will eventually decay, die... and what suffers is that illusion of "self" we've created. This is happening constantly, "self" is constantly being born and dying in this very life. Certainly the Nidanas are not suggesting that our physical death is what leads to suffering...?
However the point I am making is that this dependence of samskaras on the mind shows that the mind functions. You can literally work with it which is precisely what physicalism asserts is not possible, namely because you are an automaton and that the function of samskaras are an illusion. At such a point, you can no longer afford such a view.
Not once has anyone here asserted that we are automatons or that sankharas are an illusion. You are using "sankhara" as "[hindu] kamma," yes? This has no basis in the suttas, either, aaki. The suttas state that sankhara in terms of D.O. refers to "bodily fabricators, verbal fabricators, mental fabricators." It is clarified further in various suttas such as: "In-&-out breaths are bodily fabricators. Directed thought & evaluation are verbal fabricators. Perceptions & feelings are mental fabricators." [MN 44] Ignorance conditions namarupa via sankhara.
I'm going to meditate and then sleep so gnight as well (yes, some ppl at 4.3 power level jhana still need sleep)
WHAT has no SELF? The AGGREGATES (PARTS) of a PERSON.
WHAT are we discussing about these PERSONS? Their MANIFOLD PAST LIVES.
When you RECOLLECT them you recollect THE FIVE CLINGING-AGGREGATES [or one among them]. EACH of THESE should be "seen as it actually is with right discernment". " 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'"
Holy mother of christ what is wrong with you two guys.
????
How you are allowed to post this in a buddhist forum is amazing.
...not the collection of the aggregates which designated as the person.
There ultimately is no "person". Not-self (anatta) does not deny the aggregates. In fact, it emphasises the aggregates. An arahant is mere aggregates, pure aggregates.
It negates clinging it does not negate the person which is a functioning abstraction. Furthermore "manifold past lives" does not refer to various instances of a person during this life, because such instances are not lives.
The word is 'dwellings' or 'abode' and not 'lives'. Similar to the Buddha's use of the word 'birth'. It is a mental birth of self-identification, just like the word jati in India means social class.
As he was sitting there he said to her, "'Self-identification, self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which self-identification is described by the Blessed One?"
"There are these five aggregates subject to clinging, friend Visakha: form as an aggregate, feeling as an aggregate, perception as an aggregate, fabrications as an aggregate, consciousness as an aggregate. These five aggregates subject to clinging are the self-identification described by the Blessed One."
"'The origination of self-identification, the origination of self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which origination of self-identification is described by the Blessed One?"
"The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This, friend Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the Blessed One."
Jāti (in Devanagari: जाति) (the word literally means thus born) is the term used to denote communities and sub-communities in India. It is a term used across religions. In Indian society each jāti typically has an association with a traditional job function or tribe, although religious beliefs (e.g. Sri Vaishnavism or Veera Shaivism) or linguistic groupings define some jatis. A person's surname typically reflects a community (jati) association: thus Gandhi = perfume seller, Dhobi = washerman, Srivastava = military scribe, etc. In any given location in India 500 or more jatis may co-exist, although the exact composition will differ from district to district.
How you are allowed to post this in a buddhist forum is amazing.
Aaaaki
You yourself already quoted the Buddha, where he said: "All I teach is suffering and its cessation".
If the teaching of rebirth can help remedy suffering, the Buddha teaches it only for that purpose.
I have already quoted MN 117 to you about two kinds of right view: one that sides with merit & defilement and the other that is transcendent & a factor of the path.
"In Samyutta Nikaya (SN) 4.400, Gautama Buddha was asked if there “was no soul (natthatta)”[15], which it is conventionally considered to be equivalent to Nihilism (ucchedavada). The Buddha himself has said: “Both formerly and now, I’ve never been a nihilist (vinayika), never been one who teaches the annihilation of a being, rather taught only the source of suffering, and its ending.”
You have misinterpreted this teaching. The Buddha is simply emphasising he only teaches suffering and its ending.
[16] The early Suttas see annihilationism, which the Buddha equated with denial of a Self, as tied up with belief in a Self. It is seen as arising due to conceiving a Self in some sort of relationship to the personality-factors. It is thus rooted in the 'I am' attitude; even the attitude 'I do not exist' arises from a preoccupation with 'I'.[18]"
Why are you quoting this non-sense? Please quote the sutta.
The Buddha taught 'self' arises due to causes and ceases when the causes cease. It arises due to assumption & ignorance.
One who has discerned the five aggregates clearly comprehends, in the Buddha's words: "they are empty of self and anything belong to self".
Of course there is "self view". But only in a beguiled mind.
There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be self.
That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication?
To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication [of 'self'] is born of that.
And that fabrication is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That craving... That feeling... That contact... That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen.
It is by knowing & seeing in this way that one without delay puts an end to the effluents.
Ananda saw Sariputta coming and said to him: "Friend, Sariputta, your faculties are serene, your facial complexion is pure & bright. In what dwelling has Sariputta spent the day?"
"Here friend, I entered and dwelt in the base of infinite consciousness. Yet friend, it did not occur to me: "I dwelt in the base of infinite consciousness"."
"It must be because I-making, mine-making and the underlying tendency to conceit have been thoroughly uprooted in the Venerable Sariputta for a long time that such thoughts did not occur to him.
Stomps feet, slams door...so what are we argueing today ?
From Dhamma Dhatu's inserted pic, it must be the 'Validity of the Immaculate Conception from Dukkha's perspective'
How are u my dear? How is Geshe KG? Is the sun still evading the UK?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited December 2009
It may be cloudy, but the sun never set on the Empire dearest.
aaki, quotations and sources refers to sutta/sutras, not some random writings you happen to agree or disagree with.
Stick to the teachings, not the interpretations of some others.
From Dhamma Dhatu's inserted pic, it must be the 'Validity of the Immaculate Conception from Dukkha's perspective'
How are u my dear? How is Geshe KG? Is the sun still evading the UK?
Hiya thorny not bad dear friend hows the other half ?
Im sure GKG is well, and yep as always the sun avoids this place like cats avoid dogs...:(
I would like to see some snow at xmas time <sniff>
And Buddha never said "if you can't see the proof for yourself, do not accept it." That's a common misunderstanding of the Kalama Sutta and doesn't make much sense if you think about it. Most people can't prove E = mc^2, but they can and do accept it.
I know this is belated but I just read it:)
FYI, I think most Buddhists believe the Kalama Suttra says "do not believe anything until you can know if for yourself" not " "if you can't see the proof for yourself, do not accept it." (There is a difference between not knowing something and not accepting something as certain)
I would imagine the Buddha would say that most people don't know directly that E=mc^2 they just believe it to be the case?
At Savatthi. "Monks, any priests or contemplatives who recollect their manifold past lives all recollect the five clinging-aggregates, or one among them."
S9: As so often happens IMO, couldn’t many problems in understanding crop up in translation, or a translator’s personal bias in word choice or concept?
For instance, if the translator had said, “…recollect manifold rebirths (AKA thought worlds/moments) all recollect the 5 clinging-aggregates,” couldn’t he been pointing out that thought all cling by nature?
Perhaps the problem with proofs such as these, which you quote above, is that not All translators are fully Realized, and perhaps like most of us are prone to personal bias in our opinions and word choice. Therefore our understandings and translations would represent us, and not necessarily some Ultimate Truth.
I know beyond doubt that I'll never be completely reassured that 'me', in some sense, after 'my' next death, will either be reborn or return to my origin until I've learnt this empirically, in my own experience. So if the Buddha tells me that the skilled practitioner will at some point gain reassurance as to his or her future then I can only interpret this to mean that if I persevere I will eventually be presented with overwhelming evidence. Until then I'll be undecided. It seems to be one of the few aspects of the doctrine that it's difficult to establish by logic.
The Upanishads tell us that the unknown is not the unknowable, and within Buddhism I would have thought that any other view must be considered heterodox. So, for another answer to the original question, people have all sorts of reasons for believing in rebirth and for not believing in it but what characterizes Buddhists, and the mystics in general, is the belief that is possible for us to know the truth about these things. The Buddha's omniscience would be the proof of it. If it were impossible for me to know the truth about rebirth then the Buddha couldn't have known it either. The problem for me is not so much why why I believe in rebirth but what on earth I mean by it.
As for the physical basis of mind, Nagarjuna proves that all mind-matter only theories are logically indefensible, which implies that they are mutually dependent epiphenomena. I assume that this is the exact reason why all theories which claim otherwise are demonstrably absurd, as is daily demonstrated by the ongoing failure of 'scientific consciousness studies' to prove that the 'hard' problem is not intractable. It would only be tractable for the theory of emptiness, the only theory that Nagarjuna does not logically refute.
F: I know beyond doubt that I'll never be completely reassured that 'me', in some sense, after 'my' next death, will either be reborn or return to my origin until I've learnt this empirically, in my own experience.
S9: Also, the question of who ‘me’ is should certainly be considered, (first?).
I have to ask myself:
Why all this concern about if we are going to continue after death, if we haven’t FIRST figured out who, or what, we are? Wouldn’t this be similar to a drowning man worrying about what is for supper? ; ^ )
If we haven’t figured out who we are ‘right now’, which is the only place we actually live and have any real power to discriminate, how do we expect to understand it in some future time, while standing within this moment? Future thinking (guessing)remains purely conceptual at best?
I believe some of this fanciful speculation certainly point to our dissatisfaction in this present moment and furthermore hinges upon a wish on out part for a better future.
F: So if the Buddha tells me that the skilled practitioner will at some point gain reassurance as to his or her future then I can only interpret this to mean that if I persevere I will eventually be presented with overwhelming evidence.
S9: The Buddha was a very practical guy, when it comes to metaphysics. For the most part, he refused to indulge idle curiosity, which all too easily grows into speculation. He might have said, and it is said that he did, “First pull the arrow (of suffering) out of your body, before looking into the family tree of the guy who shot you. ; ^ )
F: The Upanishads tell us that the unknown is not the unknowable.
S9: Certainly our best hope is to look directly at what IS knowable, in this very moment. It is not a matter of accumulation so much as one of depth of understanding, I believe.
F: Any other view must be considered heterodox.
S9: Much of what we have to find out becomes a personal responsibility, in this way. It cannot be conveyed in words or actions. So we are pretty much left at some point in a silent solitude reaching for personal answers/wisdom.
F: What characterizes Buddhists, and the mystics in general, is the belief that is possible for us to know the truth about these things.
S9: Yes indeed. One characteristic of this Buddha Nature is that we are drawn to know, often having little idea what we will finally discover. : ^ )
This journey is positively addicting, certainly because of the increasing relief we seem to feel along the way, from our original burden with suffering.
F: The Buddha's omniscience.
S9: Omniscience is not something we can ever know in another. Not even Buddha.
This would be hearsay or 2nd hand. If there is omniscience, and I believe there is (though very little understood) it would only be witnessed directly, and personally, just as Buddha most likely did, IMO.
F: If it were impossible for me to know the truth about rebirth then the Buddha couldn't have known it either.
S9: Only because, like myself, he would have to admit that seeing past lives was a thing of the mind, and could easily have been, simply his imagination.
F: The problem for me is not so much why I believe in rebirth but what on earth I mean by it.
S9: Certainly as we travel along this path, and consequently understand things either differently or at increased depth, we are forced to witness what we thought we knew has changed.
F: As for the physical basis of mind, Nagarjuna proves that all mind-matter only theories are logically indefensible, which implies that they are mutually dependent epiphenomena.
S9: All thoughts are basically empty. Every premise is basically arbitrary. To start with an arbitrary root, and then build with that which it empty of essence, (thoughts) thread by thread, is like weaving a cloth out of smoke. But, I guess I am waxing poetic. : ^ )
F: The only theory that Nagarjuna does not logically refute.
S9: Also my guess is that, Nagarjuna was looking directly at it…this Empty Emptiness (empty of things of the mind), which is simultaneously full to bursting with its own essence, (another dimension) as many transcendent mystics down through the centuries have claimed to witness.
Comments
Maybe one day you'll read Master Dharmakirti or Master Dignaga, etc.
Also, thanks for the links to the sutras, but as you know I assert that you heavily skew their meanings. There isn't the slightest thing you have to offer me but I am glad you follow impermanence well. Unless you're particularly unlucky supernormal capacities will arise naturally in the jhanas, and then you can smack Buddhadhasa's idea about mind being sense organs. Or your insistence that body being a condition for the physical sense consciousnesses implies causation.
Regarding Buddhadhasa and brahmins: my point is that they both ask the same question and both equally proceed to fall off the sides of the cliff. Granted one to one side and the other on the other but they still do. As I said, brahmins say 'you're an idiot, how could there possibly be rebirth without a self?' and thus asserts self. Buddhadhasa say 'how could there be rebirth when there is no self?' and thus asserts nihilism (annihilation of cause and effect, dependent arising). He backs this idea up, naturally, by relying on his intelligence to say that mind is physical sense organ. This is neither new or unpredictable.
The Buddha did not teach this. The Buddha taught sankharas condition consciousness, in the same way shampoo conditions hair.
There is nothing in the suttas that attempts to explain the origin of mind.
All the suttas do is explain the generating of consciousness so it absorbs into sense objects and leads to suffering. Buddha was only concerned with suffering and its cessation.
When ignorance ends, consciousness remains, but it is a peaceful consciousness.
Thanks for posting a sutta where he addresses past lives directly to monks though, I guess we are now sure he didn't use this "rebirth" idea just with laity.
"I recollected my manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two... five, ten... fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, many eons of cosmic contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion, many eons of cosmic contraction & expansion."
"with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell."
OK so you are saying eons of cosmic contraction and expansion is a metaphor, the expression after death is a metaphor, break up of the body is a metaphor? Doesn't seem right to me. If you are right about the Buddha views, why would he repeat it over and over? It is pointless, he could just be silent. If I held the same view as you do I would just go ahead and admit I don't agree with the suttas. I don't see what is the big deal of bending the obvious to make it fit your views. Just disagree with them, nobody will fauter you.
If anything it just states that this kind of knowledge is unecessary. I think I posted something about this in another thread, although I wasn't sure, but this sutta confirms my theory.
I agree with you in the sense people add too much to the suttas [I get the impression from your previous posts that you do think some so called masters teach things the Buddha did not]. These suttas you quoted are very nice, but if you allow me to add, it seems that you don't like to admit that your views are based in faith, and want to affirm that they are plainly rational.
The thing is, at the moment you start saying that "the sky is blue" is a metaphor for how the wholesome actions bring peace of mind, or something similar, it pretty much shows how much faith you invest on your views. They are distorted. If you don't believe me, just re-evaluate them, it won't hurt. Ask someone you trust, a teacher or similar, to comment the way you go about interpreting the suttas, it might surprise you.
You seem to be implying that your own beliefs are grounded in such an experience. Is this the case?
At any rate, we've come a long way from your beliefs being grounded in logic...
However the point I am making is that this dependence of samskaras on the mind shows that the mind functions. You can literally work with it which is precisely what physicalism asserts is not possible, namely because you are an automaton and that the function of samskaras are an illusion. At such a point, you can no longer afford such a view.
In fact you will start going deeper and watching karmas, and making detailed and sophisticated charts, and explaining how you can for example change the earth element in water to walk on it. This is all explained in great detail in things like the Abhidharmakosha.
Your misinformation is astounding. You are not even familiar with the distinctions between the various types of causes and types of conditions. No-one says samskara CREATES the 5th heap. It is a combination of material causes, conditions, and depends on what type of mind you are talking about. It's just as astounding as when you say that a mental continuum implies an unchanging self.
No. I am not being silly.
You are giving emphasis to nothing. This is no relevance to anything.
I am a Theravada Buddhist friend. The Buddha advised for a person of right view, they cannot regard any apart from the Buddha as their teacher.
I have not quoted Buddhadasa once. I have quoted the sutta, which state consciousness is subject to causation via the sense organs.
The Buddha taught all things apart from Nibbana follow causation.
You are denying causation of mind. Certainly not Buddhist.
The suttas state the mind is the sixth sense organ.
Brother. What are you arguing against?
A lovely early morning nature walk & a swim in the warm tropical sea beckons this nama-rupa.
These various sectarian views about disembodied consciousness are amazing (to say the least).
With metta
But these days there are neuroscientist meditators, so your kind of intellectual arrogance falls on deaf ears these days. You have a lot of reading to do regarding both topics, mr automaton.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that if you still think you're an automaton, you haven't realized emptiness. That goes for every other 15 year old nihilist out on the street, too, hiding under the false pretense of science.
Aaki in this sense I agree with fivebells (*tosses wood in the fire*). Your views can be based on arguments of authority or even on empirical data, but they don't come from logic.
One can't prove rebirth with logic, as far as I can tell. As far as logic goes, the answer to whether there is rebirth or not would have to be "there is not enough data". (As in: A goes to the supermarket with 10 dollars. There, A decides to buy oranges. How many oranges did A buy?) :^P
Furthermore, rebirth is primarily based on logic. Logical proofs for example that a previous moment of mind is the material cause for this moment of mind. Proofs that physical matter could never be the material cause for mind. Things like that, there are many.
The problem with Vaibhashikas (part of which is Theravada) is they have a simplistic but accurate presentation of mind (specifically mental factors). Once you get into Dharmakirti and Dignaga (Sautrantika) then buddhism essentially turns into a sophisticated system of logic and pramana theory (valid cognition). Most people don't know this because they are not educated buddhists (or their school doesn't accept all the Indian masters).
:eek:
Elaborate. That makes no sense. I'm asking for a detailed description of what you believe mind to be, what it's dependent on, and how.
:crazy: Really, what in god's name could one possibly say to this. Let me go get my Peter Pan storybook from when I was a kid and teach you how to fly. Would you be kind enough to demonstrate this truth you assert by hurling yourself into the middle of the Atlantic for me, so I can has proofs of this myself? :buck: I promise I'll believe you then.
Nameless,
The sutta does not say past lives. The sutta discusses that recollecting any "self" is an illusion, whether it was yesterday or what you believe to be 100 lifetimes ago. You are making it sound like he was teaching the monks that rebirth is true.
Either way this sutta supports the assertion that belief in past lives, as well as supposedly "recollecting" them, is absolutely pointless to what he teaches.
How has anyone here said anything comparable to "the sky is blue is a metaphor for..."? Everything that has been said has been backed up by numerous references to the suttas, and are things that can also be seen to be true for one's self.
No one has denied that literal rebirth comes up in the suttas. But it was not the Buddha's own teachings, it had nothing to do with his message. It has it's place but not as a factor of the Path. The belief in rebirth is outright taught to be a hinderance to the path to Nibbana in the suttas. Any view of continuance or annihilation at death is based on the illusion that the Buddha taught us to do away with.
Logic 1: A human being enters a hospital for extensive surgery. The human being is given an anesthetic, rending that human being unconscious. The human being is aware of nothing & feels nothing.
Logic 2: A human being requires surgery and is given acupuncture. The human being remains visually consciousness but can feel nothing via the body consciousness sense door.
Logic 3: A human being is in a motor vehicle accident, incurring a brain injury. The human being loses certain mental capacities they once had.
Logic 4: A human being, alleged to be an arahant & possessing supernormal psychic powers, such as Ajahn Chah, spends the last years of their life in dementia.
:smilec:
That is rather tragic :^\
The sutta states what it states.
It states when a person recollects "I was" in the past, they are in fact just recollecting mere aggregates.
The whole sutta negates the "I", in the past & the present.
For example, often if a practitioner realises emptiness in the here & now, when they recollect the past, it is though their "self" was real in the past. They do not see in the past, their mind was under the spell of ignorance.
However, one funny aspect of your interpretation is having a past life with just one aggregate.
Ajahn Chah, like the Buddha, understood sickness & aging were inevitable.
If your mind discerned every arising and passing moment of sense consciousness, it may interpret differently.
If you mind discerned every kaya in Anapanasati, it may interpret different. ("I tell you monks, the breathing in & out in a body amongst bodies".)
I didn't mean in that sense though, I meant you recollect one aspect, as in the case I can recollect yesterday was a overall good day, I was feeling pleasant things, or I can just remember I went to a friend's house, something like that. This is not really important, I just wanted to make clear what I meant.
You did not understand the sutta about past lives. Instead of tearing down 'self', you build it up.
The Buddha said of those who realise his Dhamma:
The mind-body we possess is conditioned by our mental states. For example, when people lose a loved one, often their body changes. They get sick, they have depression, they develop a nervous disorder.
This is because the body they formerly had, sustained by their loved one, has broken up. They develop a broken heart. This happens after the 'death' of the loved one.
In Dhamma, the word 'kaya', literally group, is 'body'. There is nama-kaya (mental body) and rupa-kaya (physical body).
In the sutta you quoted, the teaching is about karma & its results. It is not about life after death.
The Buddha taught about karma & its results and not life after death.
Your emphasis on life after death is irrelevent.
For example, a person ill-behaved as the Buddha taught, enjoying the fruits of a life of crime, is suddenly caught and put in prison, this has the same meaning.
Feel free to delete your posts.
The topic of infinite mind (beginningless, endless) is very subtle. You resemble christians who insist that there must be, obviously has to be, a prime cause. Yet the reason as to why the mind is infinite is similar as to why time is infinite.
An illustration is that there's no problem with mind being an infinite chain of cause and effect if there is infinite time in which it can happen. I'm sort of cheating by using this simple illustration but the topic is complex and is very detailed and there is a lot to say. As a Theravadin this topic may be a little harder to work with because you do not have the advantage of working with and proving that certain types of phenomena are merely imputed phenomena (imputedly knowable), and are devoid of self-standing substantial existence.
Hmm where have I heard those ideas before. Since the mind is conditioned by the body of course if you affect the body mental experience is affected. That will happen by definition unless a person has developed particular mental qualities.
Some points to consider: it is illogical to assert that because particular experience is no longer possible that then the mental experience is necessarily the physical part. Lately some scientists are showing that 'the mind' affects the brain. Daniel J. Siegel, M.D
history lesson on the mind sciences: Alan Wallace, Ph.D
Also, your mental experience doesn't occupy any space. Also it seems as though you are not an automaton. Also besides certain correlations there's not much hard evidence.
"In Samyutta Nikaya (SN) 4.400, Gautama Buddha was asked if there “was no soul (natthatta)”[15], which it is conventionally considered to be equivalent to Nihilism (ucchedavada). The Buddha himself has said: “Both formerly and now, I’ve never been a nihilist (vinayika), never been one who teaches the annihilation of a being, rather taught only the source of suffering, and its ending.” [16] The early Suttas see annihilationism, which the Buddha equated with denial of a Self, as tied up with belief in a Self.[17] It is seen as arising due to conceiving a Self in some sort of relationship to the personality-factors. It is thus rooted in the 'I am' attitude; even the attitude 'I do not exist' arises from a preoccupation with 'I'.[18]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta
""Anything whatsoever that is past, future or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: everything is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'"
"recollect the five clinging-aggregates or one among them"
You seem prone to drawing out nonsensical conclusions from things you read.
:eek: .....
...:eek:
And since you find Wikipedia a more reliable source than the suttas, from the very article you just quoted:
I was not suggesting that the aggregates are an illusion or something, aaki. I was suggesting that there is no "self" to be found in the aggregates, that identifying/clinging to the aggregates is forming an illusion of "self" around them.
The Pali doesn't say "lives."
It's refering to: "I-making, or my-making, or obsession with conceit"
Clearly clinging to the aggregates as "self" can be seen in this very life and moment, no?
WHAT are we discussing about these PERSONS? Their MANIFOLD PAST LIVES.
What about them?
When you RECOLLECT them you recollect THE FIVE CLINGING-AGGREGATES [or one among them]. EACH of THESE should be "seen as it actually is with right discernment". " 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'"
"This, monks, is called a disciple of the noble ones who abandons and does not cling"
Holy mother of christ what is wrong with you two guys.
????
You are using impermanence to annihilate persons.
How you are allowed to post this in a buddhist forum is amazing.
Unfortunately I do not speak CAPS LOCK and so the first half of your outburst reads as Chinese to me.
Free speech or something, I imagine. Those who know the Truth do not feel it necessary to completely censor others' opposing views; therefore I must assume that...
Oh, you see, this is just flaming. You are getting very, very angry and upset over this. Perhaps it's best you don't manipulate that earth element in the water just yet, and go take a nice bath to cool yourself down and try rewriting your post with your newly born and calm "self" tomorrow.
As I have not attained Aaki Jhana 4.3 yet, I cannot read your mind and ascertain the question that was meant to precede your ?'s, otherwise I would be happy to clarify things for you.
How so? How am I "annihilating persons"?
Good night.
I'm going to meditate and then sleep so gnight as well (yes, some ppl at 4.3 power level jhana still need sleep)
Perhaps you might consider that we are using words in different senses. Because when you say things like "you're annihilating persons," I'm forced to assume you've misunderstood me. So instead of getting all excited, perhaps we can work on clarifying where each other stands, yeah?
You seem to use consciousness and mind synonymously which makes things confusing. You have not clarified precisely what "mind" is nor how it exists after we die and pops into a va-jay-jay acting as some sort of "animating life force." At what point do you believe this "thing" swooshes down into the womb? At fertilization? Does a bundle of cells have this "consciousness" or "mind" or whatever it is you're talking about?
I will now try to channel aaki jhana power lvl. 4.3 (beta), although it would have been helpful if you had simply clarified the the things I asked you to in my last post.
Yes, the aggregates that form what I can conventionally refer to as "me" have no "self" to be found in them, and the aggregates together are not "self."
No, we are not discussing past lives. The Pali, once again, does not say "past lives." The suttas clarify that it is refering to recalling past clingings to the aggregates as "self." Clinging to the aggregates as "self" in whole or part can be seen in this very moment and life, and as such there is no need to even consider trying to prove past lives and see this truth in past lives. Every time one forms self-identity around the aggregates, a new "self" is born. The suttas explicitly state that what is being refered to is "any I-making, or my-making, or obsession with conceit" - I do not know what about this line is confusing to you so please explain. When something is clung to as "I" or "mine," it, along with that "self," will eventually decay, die... and what suffers is that illusion of "self" we've created. This is happening constantly, "self" is constantly being born and dying in this very life. Certainly the Nidanas are not suggesting that our physical death is what leads to suffering...?
Not once has anyone here asserted that we are automatons or that sankharas are an illusion. You are using "sankhara" as "[hindu] kamma," yes? This has no basis in the suttas, either, aaki. The suttas state that sankhara in terms of D.O. refers to "bodily fabricators, verbal fabricators, mental fabricators." It is clarified further in various suttas such as: "In-&-out breaths are bodily fabricators. Directed thought & evaluation are verbal fabricators. Perceptions & feelings are mental fabricators." [MN 44] Ignorance conditions namarupa via sankhara.
So you CAN read minds? :bowdown:
Someone needs to quote the "Pants on fire" sutra, here.
.
But to think back to a literal past life and think only of a body or one aggregate.
That is nonsensical.
You yourself already quoted the Buddha, where he said: "All I teach is suffering and its cessation".
If the teaching of rebirth can help remedy suffering, the Buddha teaches it only for that purpose.
I have already quoted MN 117 to you about two kinds of right view: one that sides with merit & defilement and the other that is transcendent & a factor of the path.
Why are you quoting this non-sense? Please quote the sutta.
The Buddha taught 'self' arises due to causes and ceases when the causes cease. It arises due to assumption & ignorance.
One who has discerned the five aggregates clearly comprehends, in the Buddha's words: "they are empty of self and anything belong to self".
Of course there is "self view". But only in a beguiled mind.
Of the angelic Buddhists I know or have known, some teach rebirth and others do not.
Your attempt to defer to some kind of power falls on deaf ears, just like the taunts of Mara, using his supernormal powers, falls on deaf ears.
How are u my dear? How is Geshe KG? Is the sun still evading the UK?
aaki, quotations and sources refers to sutta/sutras, not some random writings you happen to agree or disagree with.
Stick to the teachings, not the interpretations of some others.
Thanks.
Hiya thorny not bad dear friend hows the other half ?
Im sure GKG is well, and yep as always the sun avoids this place like cats avoid dogs...:(
I would like to see some snow at xmas time <sniff>
I know this is belated but I just read it:)
FYI, I think most Buddhists believe the Kalama Suttra says "do not believe anything until you can know if for yourself" not " "if you can't see the proof for yourself, do not accept it." (There is a difference between not knowing something and not accepting something as certain)
I would imagine the Buddha would say that most people don't know directly that E=mc^2 they just believe it to be the case?
Mat
At Savatthi. "Monks, any priests or contemplatives who recollect their manifold past lives all recollect the five clinging-aggregates, or one among them."
S9: As so often happens IMO, couldn’t many problems in understanding crop up in translation, or a translator’s personal bias in word choice or concept?
For instance, if the translator had said, “…recollect manifold rebirths (AKA thought worlds/moments) all recollect the 5 clinging-aggregates,” couldn’t he been pointing out that thought all cling by nature?
Perhaps the problem with proofs such as these, which you quote above, is that not All translators are fully Realized, and perhaps like most of us are prone to personal bias in our opinions and word choice. Therefore our understandings and translations would represent us, and not necessarily some Ultimate Truth.
Respectfully,
S9
I know beyond doubt that I'll never be completely reassured that 'me', in some sense, after 'my' next death, will either be reborn or return to my origin until I've learnt this empirically, in my own experience. So if the Buddha tells me that the skilled practitioner will at some point gain reassurance as to his or her future then I can only interpret this to mean that if I persevere I will eventually be presented with overwhelming evidence. Until then I'll be undecided. It seems to be one of the few aspects of the doctrine that it's difficult to establish by logic.
The Upanishads tell us that the unknown is not the unknowable, and within Buddhism I would have thought that any other view must be considered heterodox. So, for another answer to the original question, people have all sorts of reasons for believing in rebirth and for not believing in it but what characterizes Buddhists, and the mystics in general, is the belief that is possible for us to know the truth about these things. The Buddha's omniscience would be the proof of it. If it were impossible for me to know the truth about rebirth then the Buddha couldn't have known it either. The problem for me is not so much why why I believe in rebirth but what on earth I mean by it.
As for the physical basis of mind, Nagarjuna proves that all mind-matter only theories are logically indefensible, which implies that they are mutually dependent epiphenomena. I assume that this is the exact reason why all theories which claim otherwise are demonstrably absurd, as is daily demonstrated by the ongoing failure of 'scientific consciousness studies' to prove that the 'hard' problem is not intractable. It would only be tractable for the theory of emptiness, the only theory that Nagarjuna does not logically refute.
F: I know beyond doubt that I'll never be completely reassured that 'me', in some sense, after 'my' next death, will either be reborn or return to my origin until I've learnt this empirically, in my own experience.
S9: Also, the question of who ‘me’ is should certainly be considered, (first?).
I have to ask myself:
Why all this concern about if we are going to continue after death, if we haven’t FIRST figured out who, or what, we are? Wouldn’t this be similar to a drowning man worrying about what is for supper? ; ^ )
If we haven’t figured out who we are ‘right now’, which is the only place we actually live and have any real power to discriminate, how do we expect to understand it in some future time, while standing within this moment? Future thinking (guessing)remains purely conceptual at best?
I believe some of this fanciful speculation certainly point to our dissatisfaction in this present moment and furthermore hinges upon a wish on out part for a better future.
F: So if the Buddha tells me that the skilled practitioner will at some point gain reassurance as to his or her future then I can only interpret this to mean that if I persevere I will eventually be presented with overwhelming evidence.
S9: The Buddha was a very practical guy, when it comes to metaphysics. For the most part, he refused to indulge idle curiosity, which all too easily grows into speculation. He might have said, and it is said that he did, “First pull the arrow (of suffering) out of your body, before looking into the family tree of the guy who shot you. ; ^ )
F: The Upanishads tell us that the unknown is not the unknowable.
S9: Certainly our best hope is to look directly at what IS knowable, in this very moment. It is not a matter of accumulation so much as one of depth of understanding, I believe.
F: Any other view must be considered heterodox.
S9: Much of what we have to find out becomes a personal responsibility, in this way. It cannot be conveyed in words or actions. So we are pretty much left at some point in a silent solitude reaching for personal answers/wisdom.
F: What characterizes Buddhists, and the mystics in general, is the belief that is possible for us to know the truth about these things.
S9: Yes indeed. One characteristic of this Buddha Nature is that we are drawn to know, often having little idea what we will finally discover. : ^ )
This journey is positively addicting, certainly because of the increasing relief we seem to feel along the way, from our original burden with suffering.
F: The Buddha's omniscience.
S9: Omniscience is not something we can ever know in another. Not even Buddha.
This would be hearsay or 2nd hand. If there is omniscience, and I believe there is (though very little understood) it would only be witnessed directly, and personally, just as Buddha most likely did, IMO.
F: If it were impossible for me to know the truth about rebirth then the Buddha couldn't have known it either.
S9: Only because, like myself, he would have to admit that seeing past lives was a thing of the mind, and could easily have been, simply his imagination.
F: The problem for me is not so much why I believe in rebirth but what on earth I mean by it.
S9: Certainly as we travel along this path, and consequently understand things either differently or at increased depth, we are forced to witness what we thought we knew has changed.
F: As for the physical basis of mind, Nagarjuna proves that all mind-matter only theories are logically indefensible, which implies that they are mutually dependent epiphenomena.
S9: All thoughts are basically empty. Every premise is basically arbitrary. To start with an arbitrary root, and then build with that which it empty of essence, (thoughts) thread by thread, is like weaving a cloth out of smoke. But, I guess I am waxing poetic. : ^ )
F: The only theory that Nagarjuna does not logically refute.
S9: Also my guess is that, Nagarjuna was looking directly at it…this Empty Emptiness (empty of things of the mind), which is simultaneously full to bursting with its own essence, (another dimension) as many transcendent mystics down through the centuries have claimed to witness.
Respectfully,
S9